Abortion is inconsistent “with an American perspective on the value of life”

By Dave Andrusko

if-abortion-isnt-wrong-then-nothing-is-wrongThe Harvard Law Record bills itself as “the oldest law school-affiliated newspaper in the United States. An independent and nonpartisan paper, it has been published since 1946.”

Apparently a new feature highlights “opposing views from members of the HLS community.”

To be honest, if I had been asked, I would have doubted that they could find anyone in that community to defend HB2, the Texas abortion law whose constitutionality the Supreme Court is currently deciding.

But they did and Nic Mayne (who, as it happens, is the Deputy Opinion Editor of The Harvard Law Record) dissects the crucial issues raised in a law that requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and the abortion clinic to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers. (He also discusses the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act which the litigants challenging other portions of HB 2 chose not to bring before the courts.)

We (meaning all pro-lifers) would not agree with many parts of his op-ed. But given where this appears–after all this is the Harvard Law Record we’re talking about–his response is worth reading.

Mayne correctly highlights how inconsistent abortion is “with an American perspective on the value of life. He refers to fetal homicide laws protecting the unborn that on the books in 37 states. He adds, “Protecting the unborn is overwhelmingly consistent with American values and legislative history.”

But having reached these tried and true conclusions, he retreats into the “well-maybe-there-are-other-ways-than-laws” position.

If Mayne meant there are many other additional ways to stop the abortion juggernaut–help for cash-strapped crisis pregnancy centers, state-run websites with accurate information that abortion-minded women can access independent of the abortionists, , a preference for full-service health centers rather than abortion clinics when distributing federal dollars to aid the poor, to name just three examples –we’d hardly agree.

But passing protective legislation and electing the kind of officeholders who will enact such laws (and repel pro-abortion initiatives) is a must. This is worse than fighting with one hand tied behind your back.

One other important consideration Mayne brings up–adoption law and policy–which he writes “is in dire need of reform.” Too often–way too often–the adoption option isn’t an option at all for women and girls. And it should be because it true is a win-win solution.

Finally, Mayne argues that “Casting aside the antagonism perpetuated by decades of fierce debate, I know the majority of Americans agree that less abortions would be better.” And “What we disagree on is not whether or not we should end more lives,” but how to reduce the number of abortions. Even that “the most staunch liberals are to an extent, in favor of defending life.”

It is unquestionably true that reducing the over 1 million annual abortions is a development much desired by a [vast] majority of Americans.

But it is not true for many pro-abortionists–starting, for example, with presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders. For them there is no abortion that they would say no to.

In fact, Mrs. Clinton has spent a considerable amount of time and energy proselytizing for the wonderfulness of using American dollars to undercut protective abortion laws overseas. For Clinton there could never, ever be enough abortions.

I’d give Mayne one-thumb up, not because I believe his heart is in the wrong place, but because he does not grasp how deeply entrenched the culture of death is in the “liberal” community.